I thought this interview went really well! James seemed to understand the way that deliberate misinformation seems to play the same part in ordinary politics as in ψ.

It was the realisation that a sceptical scientist had just lied on a television program that helped move me away from the conventional position. He said, "There is no scientific evidence that ψ exists!" (or words to that effect, it is a long time ago now), but I happened to know that there was already quite a mass of peer reviewed papers on the subject - something which he clearly did not want to share with his audience - so he lied.

He said, "There is no scientific evidence that ψ exists!" (or words to that effect, it is a long time ago now), but I happened to know that there was already quite a mass of peer reviewed papers on the subject - something which he clearly did not want to share with his audience - so he lied.

I came across a recent example on the Merseyside Skeptics Society podcast. The theme of the series was "Be Reasonable" and a semblance of being reasonable is seemingly attempted. However at one stage, the presenter just stated flatly that there was "no evidence whatsoever" for a phenomenon. (In the example I recall, it was reincarnation). In fact there is a mountain of evidence - perhaps it should be discussed rather than pretending it doesn't exist. This sort of misrepresentation is unfortunately commonplace - we've all seen or heard it.

Anyone on this page who listened to/watched James Corbett's transmission on UFO disclosure might, like me, have thought his definition was a bit narrow, allowing him to be rather too easily dismissive of the whole business, as well as painting US intelligence and military as just a bit too ingenuous... He seems to have focused solely on Steven Greer's storyline, rather than exploring it beyond this to consider, for instance, Robert Hastings' totally different take on the whole issue of visitations near sensitive facilities, which is described also as disclosure.

Anyone on this page who listened to/watched James Corbett's transmission on UFO disclosure might, like me, have thought his definition was a bit narrow, allowing him to be rather too easily dismissive of the whole business, as well as painting US intelligence and military as just a bit too ingenuous... He seems to have focused solely on Steven Greer's storyline, rather than exploring it beyond this to consider, for instance, Robert Hastings' totally different take on the whole issue of visitations near sensitive facilities, which is described also as disclosure.

I also watched his video on a fake alien invasion and came away with a similiar feeling. One of his lines of reasoning was that since Laurance Rockefeller was involved in funding various movements within the UFO community, it then follows that the whole thing should be viewed as a fraudulent manipulation in some larger geopolitical scheme. I'm not convinced this is the case. I've not studied this very deeply but I get the impression, perhaps naively, that Laurance Rockefeller had a personal interest in the bigger questions and that's the reason he funded these kind of initiatives. Another example of an initiative funded by Laurance Rockefeller was CIIS, which was an endeavour to build an academic institution that affirms spirituality. Robert McDermott (former president of CIIS) briefly touch on it in this talk.

Edit: Since I posted this, I have learned to spell Laurance Rockefeller correctly. The post now reflects this

Yes, Laurance's surname has been used rather in the way that the Nazis use the word "Jew", although most people do so without realizing. The Rockefellers had their fair share of dissidents and drop-outs in the 1960s (and at other times), and, insofar as their power is concerned, have probably been overtaken by more sinister forces, or at least embraced by such.

Anyone on this page who listened to/watched James Corbett's transmission on UFO disclosure might, like me, have thought his definition was a bit narrow, allowing him to be rather too easily dismissive of the whole business, as well as painting US intelligence and military as just a bit too ingenuous... He seems to have focused solely on Steven Greer's storyline, rather than exploring it beyond this to consider, for instance, Robert Hastings' totally different take on the whole issue of visitations near sensitive facilities, which is described also as disclosure.